PDA

View Full Version : Stop the bloatware madness!



Pétur
2008-08-05, 05:08
Release after release I see memory usage go up. After installing 7.1 I had to check that it was actually Logitec that bought slimdevices, and not Microsoft.

SqueezeCenter as a whole now needs 150MB RAM to run on my pc. WTF?
If you look at what the software actually does, I would say a good developer could write you a replacement in a *real* programming language and have it consume less than 10MB. How about C++? Nice and portable, you might even get a real gui with it using QT?

I considered running SS on my NAS, but I figured out that what I actually need to do is ditch the Slimdevices bloatware altogether and move to something sensible. If only the sound of my SB2 wouldn't be so good... The first (even expensive, commercial) replacement of SS that comes around would have a customer right now. Me.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE have a look at what you're producing before the whole bloated construction falls on you head.

why the hell this was written in a script language in the first place is still a mystery to me :(

simbo
2008-08-05, 05:25
Valid question, but likely to stir up some resentment. :-)

The script-based architecture is there to promote extensibility. The cost of extensibility is well understood across software engineering and SC is no exception.

SC has definitely grown in resource requirements and, yes, it could be its undoing. I think there is certainly a place for an SC-Lite with basic functionality and no plugins.

However the appeal of the whole Squeezebox solution comes from its ability to adapt and extend - something that couldn't be achieved if the architecture didn't support scripting. Does it need to be so script-based? I don't know.

If you haven't done so already, I would recommend you go through the plugins list and switch off those you don't use. This will bring down the RAM footprint to a degree.

Pétur
2008-08-05, 05:33
Well I have no objections against scriptability or plugins - to the contrary.

But scriptability does *not* require your core software to be a script as well. Only if you need to be able to modify any code almost on the fly - which very little users need.

And SS is growing very fast indeed. Last time I started ranting here, it was at 80 or 90 MB... Should check when that was but it can't be more than 2 years ago. So we're looking at nearly doubling of RAM requirements in 2 years. This way I know when my home pc will need an upgrade :/

simbo
2008-08-05, 05:44
I see where you're coming from. I think (and correctly if I'm wrong) that the "core" code (as defined by the original developers) isn't script based. The issue arises when much of the functionality that we now consider "core" (i.e. must-have) was originally developed as plugins and has remained that way, in its script form.

Just browsing through the plugins list confirms that: Random Mix, Rescan Library, Prevent System Standby While Playing...

Maybe there should be an effort to convert these components into native compiled code, but this would mean taking resource away from delivering new stuff! :-)

mherger
2008-08-05, 05:47
> And SS is growing very fast indeed. Last time I started ranting here,
> it was at 80 or 90 MB...

I know, I'm biased. But I wanted to ask you to check your numbers. My systems (Linux & OSX) are still running at slightly below 70MB. Make sure you don't use any 3rd party plugin when measuring the requirements, as some of them easily add that difference to the consumption.

--

Michael

mherger
2008-08-05, 05:56
> systems (Linux & OSX) are still running at slightly below 70MB. Make

To complete my numbers: on Windows I'm at 90MB.

--

Michael

Siduhe
2008-08-05, 06:06
On Windows XP with SC running at "above normal priority" and a small number of active 3rd party plugins such as AlienBBC: 99MB

andynormancx
2008-08-05, 06:26
I see where you're coming from. I think (and correctly if I'm wrong) that the "core" code (as defined by the original developers) isn't script based. The issue arises when much of the functionality that we now consider "core" (i.e. must-have) was originally developed as plugins and has remained that way, in its script form.

Really ? I was under the impression that all the server code was in Perl.

peter
2008-08-05, 06:36
andynormancx wrote:
> simbo;326233 Wrote:
>
>> I see where you're coming from. I think (and correctly if I'm wrong)
>> that the "core" code (as defined by the original developers) isn't
>> script based. The issue arises when much of the functionality that we
>> now consider "core" (i.e. must-have) was originally developed as
>> plugins and has remained that way, in its script form.
>>
>>
> Really ? I was under the impression that all the server code was in
> Perl.
>

It's all Perl, AFAIK.
It's one of the reasons I bought my Slimp3, I figured I could hack it.
And I could ;)

Regards,
Peter

simbo
2008-08-05, 06:38
Really ? I was under the impression that all the server code was in Perl.
I've just checked and you're right. I was wrong and you corrected me, just like I asked ;-).

I think I saw the bin folder and assumed the compiled stuff was doing more than it actually is.

radish
2008-08-05, 06:43
It is all perl, although the windows version is compiled with activestate. Personally I've never seen SC take over 100mb, but it's not something I pay a lot of attention too. One interesting experiment would be to see the size of an empty instance (ie with nothing in the library).

simbo
2008-08-05, 06:50
I get the impression a lot of people don't see ~100MB footprints to be an issue when the OP apparently does and probably others.

My opinion: it seems high for what it actually is (a music streamer) but not enough to worry about when the standard Windows build is 2GB nowadays. Also, virtual memory means it doesn't hit you that hard.

If the core functionality starts to become impacted by the "bloat" then I see an issue.

Kuben72
2008-08-05, 07:40
On FreeNas with 6 plugins active I can see a load about 120 MB incl. MySQL. Perl takes about 90 MB.

MrSinatra
2008-08-05, 09:51
squeez~1.exe = 106,820K

thats unused, on a fresh boot. afaik, the only plugins it has are the ones it comes with, and i deactivated a lot of those.

squeezetray.exe = 13,944K
mysqld.exe = 15,972K

this is an issue i have complained about before. to me its simply ridiculous to have such high numbers. nothing else i have even comes close.

i'm not saying this issue should be a priority, but sooner or later it will need dealt with.

Chewie
2008-08-05, 10:10
As above, XP sb2

squeez~1.exe = 152,084K

Thats unused, on a fresh boot, the only plugin used is Trackstat

squeezetray.exe = 14,552K

mysqld.exe = 20,020K

seanadams
2008-08-05, 10:21
On modern operating systems is important to look at the _resident_ memory usage after a few hours of running time. Quite a lot of Squeezecenter's footprint usually gets paged out.

MrSinatra
2008-08-05, 10:24
i got my values from "mem usage" in task manager.

how do i see what portions in ram, and whats in a HD page?

Mushroom_3
2008-08-05, 11:03
Win XP pro

Squeez~1.exe 112,404K
mysqld.exe 18,496K
Squeezetray 16,468K

Been running for 6 hours

andynormancx
2008-08-05, 11:13
squeez~1.exe = 106,820K

thats unused, on a fresh boot. afaik, the only plugins it has are the ones it comes with, and i deactivated a lot of those.

squeezetray.exe = 13,944K
mysqld.exe = 15,972K

this is an issue i have complained about before. to me its simply ridiculous to have such high numbers. nothing else i have even comes close.

Really. A busy Firefox or IE session easily uses 140,000k, Thunderbird 130,000k and Azureus 110,000k.

Given the huge range of functionality and the fact that it is implemented in a scripting language, SC's memory usage is perfectly reasonable. If it wasn't written in an easy to pick apart and tweak scripting language then it wouldn't have gained half those features.

egd
2008-08-05, 11:36
SqueezeCenter Version: 7.1.1 - 22254 on Ubuntu: MySQL 19.1MB, Squeezecenter_s 1.5MB & Squeezecenter-s 64.8MB, for a total footprint of 85.4MB. I do have plugins I don't use switched off but I have others such a MusicIP and iPeng running.

Kuben72
2008-08-05, 11:57
IMO a load of 120 MB is reasonable when you consider the amount of functionality. In fact I would go as far to say that it is a small footprint

alefgr
2008-08-05, 15:43
Server running with OS Win2K3 Ent. with 3GBytes RAM
Library 100.000+ mp3 files, 9.100 albums
SqueezeCenter Version: 7.0.1 - 19705 @ Wed May 14 19:43:37 PDT 2008 - Windows
Player only one SqueezeBox2

Memory Usage:
squeezecenter.exe -> 275.324 K (372.988 K Peak)
mysqld.exe -> 83.248 K (88.420 K Peak)

Plugins:
CustomBrowse
CustomScan
CustomSkip
DatabaseQuery
DynamicPlayList
Pop 3 Email Browser
InfoBrowserAddons
MusicInfoSCR
PlaylistManager
ShadowPlay
SQLPlayList
TrackStat
WeatherTime

pippin
2008-08-05, 16:23
Windows: 140 MB (including MySQL), which makes it #1 in memory usage even above firefox which is a known memory hog (although it got better with V3)

Sean, that most of the memory gets pages out is not a good argument. That either means

a) it's not being used. Which opens up the question why it has to stay used.
b) it's being used some times. That means it will get paged in and that's what typically kills the performance of a system because all other tasks will be affected, too. Especially on Windows but my Mac is not much better on this.

And no, I will NEVER understand, why a streaming software needs FIVE TIMES the memory footprint of my photo editing software.

Have to stop now to not run into another perl rant...

m1abrams
2008-08-05, 16:58
I get a kick out the the OP saying it should be written in a real programming language like "C++". No it should be written in Assembly :) . Obviously he has never coded in C++. I made my living a few years ago writing C++ code and would rather deal with Perl any day. C++ (not C) is a mess, mainly do to the way it was put together and the many battles over standards. Did they ever get a standard defined? It also makes a lot of compromises to remain C compliant while trying to shoehorn OO into it.

Perl is actually a rather capable language, only issue with it is it does require a bit more diligence to keep the code maintainable than other languages. Mainly because it offers so many ways to do the same thing.

While with C++ you can write extremely tight code and just make it hum with less resources than you can with Perl. However in order to do that you need someone with many more years of experience in C++ than you do with Perl. Now Java would be a decent compromise, however again you would have to basically start from scratch and that is huge under taking. It is open source and you are welcome to tackle it. Put together a sound plan you might be able to get a number of developers behind.

As for the Core not needing to be coded in the same language the plugins are written in. Well it makes it a hell of a lot easier to provide that, otherwise you pretty much need to build in an interpreter which is not fun. Mozilla uses JavaScript because well a web browser already needs to be able to interpret JavaScript anyhow.

pfarrell
2008-08-05, 17:06
m1abrams wrote:
> I get a kick out the the OP saying it should be written in a real
> programming language like "C++". No it should be written in Assembly :)

Love it.

This whole discussion is silly. A typical PC these days has 2GB. Bloat
doesn't matter.

The cost of systems is the programmers, and their productivity. Compare
that to $30 for a gig of ram, and their is no question what to optimize.

Even embedded systems are moving towards trading RAM/flash for
programmer productivity, at least when you are talking under a million
units.

--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

pippin
2008-08-05, 17:25
m1abrams wrote:
> I get a kick out the the OP saying it should be written in a real
> programming language like "C++". No it should be written in Assembly :)

Love it.

This whole discussion is silly. A typical PC these days has 2GB. Bloat
doesn't matter.

perl is not productive, perl a mess... No structure, no syntax no memory oversight.
SC affects the performance on ALL of my systems. My server was scaled to be able to run it, my MacBook dosn't stop the fan with it running and my PC becomes completely unusable as soon as SC starts scanning.

I like SCs functionality, but the resource usage is immense. Again: the only other software I use that uses similar amounts of memory is Firefox, even the likes of Photoshop and Word use way less, Apple's whole Xcode dev. environment takes less.

pfarrell
2008-08-05, 17:32
pippin wrote:
> perl is not productive, perl a mess... No structure, no syntax no
> memory oversight.

This has been beaten to death over the years.
Its open source, write in your favorite language, "code welcome"

It is what it is.

--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

m1abrams
2008-08-05, 17:47
perl is not productive, perl a mess... No structure, no syntax no memory oversight.
SC affects the performance on ALL of my systems. My server was scaled to be able to run it, my MacBook dosn't stop the fan with it running and my PC becomes completely unusable as soon as SC starts scanning.

I like SCs functionality, but the resource usage is immense. Again: the only other software I use that uses similar amounts of memory is Firefox, even the likes of Photoshop and Word use way less, Apple's whole Xcode dev. environment takes less.

Well I do not have experience with Perl on the Mac, and limited experience with Perl on Windows. However you may want to look at other issues with your systems, since many users here do not suffer the issues you have. I was running SC7 on an older Athlon Socket A processor (forgot the exact model) with 512MB of RAM with no issues. Only reason it is still not on that machine is because I upgraded my workstation and the trickle down effect upgraded it. SC7 currently is using about 65MB resident memory, MySQL is ~12MB. That is extremely acceptable.

Oh and Firefox core is written in C++, however the UI is done mostly in JavaScript and XUL. They most likely decided to do the UI this way (instead of a "real language" :) ) to lend to making Plugins easier. This is just a guess but I am betting that a good chunk of the memory footprint in Firefox comes from the UI.

m1abrams
2008-08-05, 17:56
perl is not productive, perl a mess... No structure, no syntax no memory oversight.


Ok arguing semantics here but curious as to what you see wrong with Perl's memory management? It is simple mind you but works fairly well biggest weakness I know of is circular reference causing a memory leak but those are usually very easy to find.

Perl's code structure is largely based on C which is why I can read it so well, they did make some added shortcut syntax however you can be a diehard and do it the long way if you like.

Not even sure what "no syntax" means? I am pretty sure it has a syntax, that or does the coder just try to mentally meld with the machine?

pippin
2008-08-05, 18:30
Ok arguing semantics here but curious as to what you see wrong with Perl's memory management? It is simple mind you but works fairly well biggest weakness I know of is circular reference causing a memory leak but those are usually very easy to find.

call me old fashioned, but it's my experience that enforcing a certain level of structure in your memory usage helps a lot not only WRT to memory leaks but also to general memory usage. You never know which code is using how much memory where and if it's still being used or not. You can say you don't have to because it's garbage collected but then you forget that one reference that keeps unused indexes in memory and things like that.
It's an issue perl shares with most type-less languages but it's still an issue.


Perl's code structure is largely based on C which is why I can read it so well, they did make some added shortcut syntax however you can be a diehard and do it the long way if you like.

Problem is they mix different paradigms. C sytax plus a stack handling like logo (ok: lisp) plus that (admittedly very powerful) regex syntax.
C++ is also not very good at that but FAR better than perl.


or does the coder just try to mentally meld with the machine?
That's how it feels to me...

but now we are in the middle of that perl rant I didn't want.
So I will NOT comment again on perl.
I just feel the server could use a little less resources.

m1abrams
2008-08-05, 18:40
Perl's memory management really has little to do with it be typeless, look at Java it is strongly typed and uses garbage collection. And having the coder be responsible for memory management is ripe with issues. Once the code gets to a certain level of complexity it can be very difficult to trace the source of a memory leak. Perl you really only have to worry about a few gotchas. It really is a better system if you are not as concerned about the overhead, which in modern PC hardware should not be a concern for most applications. Now if you are coding on micro-controllers that is a different story and C is good for that if you do not care to be bother with Assembly.

peter
2008-08-05, 21:54
MrSinatra wrote:
> squeez~1.exe = 106,820K
>
> thats unused, on a fresh boot. afaik, the only plugins it has are the
> ones it comes with, and i deactivated a lot of those.
>
> squeezetray.exe = 13,944K
> mysqld.exe = 15,972K
>
> this is an issue i have complained about before. to me its simply
> ridiculous to have such high numbers. nothing else i have even comes
> close.
>
> i'm not saying this issue should be a priority, but sooner or later it
> will need dealt with.
>

Using Perl has great advantages and some disadvantages. You don't really
suppose SD is going to throw away years of development and start anew in
c++ do you? That wouldn't make business sense. Meanwhile PC's are
getting faster and getting more memory every year. The greatest jump in
memory usage will have been when they switched to mysql from sqlite
because it added an entire database management system. It also made
thing a lot faster I think.

Regards,
Peter

mherger
2008-08-05, 22:29
> squeezecenter.exe -> *275.324 K* (*372.988 K* Peak)

That's impressive. Your list of plugins even more. Now restart your SC
without them and I bet you'll be at less than half these numbers.

Michael

pippin
2008-08-05, 23:47
> squeezecenter.exe -> *275.324 K* (*372.988 K* Peak)

That's impressive. Your list of plugins even more. Now restart your SC
without them and I bet you'll be at less than half these numbers.

Michael

so what?
The claim was not that Logitech is delivering bad software but that the architecture drives ressource utilization. AFAIS plugin extensibility is the main argument brought forward in favor of this architecture so asking tu turn them off doesn't make sense inthis context.

mherger
2008-08-05, 23:57
>> That's impressive. Your list of plugins even more. Now restart your SC
>> without them and I bet you'll be at less than half these numbers.
>
> so what?
> The claim was not that Logitech is delivering bad software but that the
> architecture drives ressource utilization.

No, not the architecture alone. We've seen plugins which increased memory
consumption by more than 100MB, due to memory leaks, inefficient
programming, performance optimization at the cost of memory consumption,
whatever. Thus throwing up such numbers just doesn't work. It's comparing
strawberries with strawberries plus double-cream.

I never said SC was lightweight, or memory consumption wasn't an issue. I
just want to make sure we're all talking about the same numbers.

Michael

pippin
2008-08-06, 00:35
OK.
140MB idle (no player connected, nothing played since bootup, no WebIF loaded, no controller connected, nothing...)

Only Plugins by Erland and yourself:
Album Review
Biography
Custom Browse
Dynamic Playlist
iPeng
SQLPlaylist
TrackStat

I don't have any dynamic playlists, only use DP and SQLP for compatibility testing, this is one of my dev systems. My "production" system on ubuntu is at around 250 MB incl. mysql.

mherger
2008-08-06, 00:43
> Only Plugins by Erland and yourself:
> Album Review
> Biography
> Custom Browse
> Dynamic Playlist
> iPeng
> SQLPlaylist
> TrackStat

That's a lot of cream on top of SC. I only can kindly ask you to give us
the numbers without it. You don't have to.

Michael

pippin
2008-08-06, 00:46
EDIT: That's 225MB on ubuntu.
To be fair, one of the other media servers I run, TwonkyMedia is at 100MB, too while doing nothing.

pippin
2008-08-06, 00:52
> Only Plugins by Erland and yourself:[color=blue]

That's a lot of cream on top of SC. I only can kindly ask you to give us
the numbers without it. You don't have to.

Michael

108 MB. And that's a system I can't even use for anything since I even disabled iPeng ;-)

Pétur
2008-08-06, 01:17
I get a kick out the the OP saying it should be written in a real programming language like "C++". No it should be written in Assembly :) . Obviously he has never coded in C++. I made my living a few years ago writing C++ code and would rather deal with Perl any day. C++ (not C) is a mess, mainly do to the way it was put together and the many battles over standards. Did they ever get a standard defined? It also makes a lot of compromises to remain C compliant while trying to shoehorn OO into it.

Might surprise you that I earn my living writing C and C++ (mostly C these days on embedded). Obviously you have never seen good C++ code, as most would-be C++ programmers manage to write code that uses C++ features because it is new and they want to try it, and not because the C++ feature makes sense.

And to counter the point that most PC's have 2GB mem anyway: The origin of my rant is that I was looking into running SS on a lower spec system (mainly fanless/low noise/you get the picture) or even my NAS. You can just forget about running it on anything with less than 512MB.

I bet the people that are not complaining here are also very happy with Vista - the main reason most new PC's have 2GB in the first place.

I will try to do some tests without plugins later, but I do not think the mem usage will change an order of magnitude because of them.

peter
2008-08-06, 01:58
Pétur wrote:
> Might surprise you that I earn my living writing C and C++ (mostly C
> these days on embedded). Obviously you have never seen good C++ code,
> as most would-be C++ programmers manage to write code that uses C++
> features because it is new and they want to try it, and not because the
> C++ feature makes sense.
>

Great, so you're uniquely qualified to start a C/C++ port of SC!

> And to counter the point that most PC's have 2GB mem anyway: The origin
> of my rant is that I was looking into running SS on a lower spec system
> (mainly fanless/low noise/you get the picture) or even my NAS. You can
> just forget about running it on anything with less than 512MB.
>

An SC Lite for a NAS would be nice for many people I guess.

> I bet the people that are not complaining here are also very happy with
> Vista - the main reason most new PC's have 2GB in the first place.
>

Most non-complaining people seem to be running Linux AFAICS.
I'm running a headless server box that runs Mysql anyway and the extra
70 MB SC takes doesn't bother me at all.

Regards,
Peter

m1abrams
2008-08-06, 03:33
I have seen some incredible good C++ code. Not arguing that it can not be done. Just saying Perl is easier and faster to write good code.

As for a low power, quiet machine. I have a HTPC that handles Blu-ray that only has only 2 120mm fans that are dead silent. This machine also has 2GB of RAM. SC will run just fine with 512MB of RAM and I bet you could build a Linux machine and get it to run on 256MB if you forgo any windowing environment. But why bother, memory is not going to add loads of heat or power consumption.

Making it run on a NAS? Well from what I have seen of many of the consumer NAS products out I would not use them for file sharing much less a media server. They really are built with the lowest quality products in mind. Not just low spec, but low quality. You can easily slap together better gear for about the same money and use one of the many free opensource NAS packages for the OS. All while still keeping it quiet and low power.

aubuti
2008-08-06, 04:36
And to counter the point that most PC's have 2GB mem anyway: The origin of my rant is that I was looking into running SS on a lower spec system (mainly fanless/low noise/you get the picture) or even my NAS. You can just forget about running it on anything with less than 512MB.
Sorry, but that last statement simply has no basis whatsoever. Lots of people run SC7.x on less than 512MB. I run SC with several plugins on a basic consumer NAS with 128MB RAM, feeding up to 5 SBs. I have set up a similar NAS for a friend. Before I got the NAS I was running SS on a vintage desktop with 256MB. All run Linux that boot to text mode only. Scanning and the SC web ui are slow but usable, but control via the Duet Controller or IR remote is plenty snappy.

Also, you can build/buy fanless low-noise low-energy-draw systems with 1GB RAM and 1.2GHz or better processors.

Pétur
2008-08-06, 05:49
Sorry, but that last statement simply has no basis whatsoever. Lots of people run SC7.x on less than 512MB. I run SC with several plugins on a basic consumer NAS with 128MB RAM, feeding up to 5 SBs. I have set up a similar NAS for a friend. Before I got the NAS I was running SS on a vintage desktop with 256MB. All run Linux that boot to text mode only. Scanning and the SC web ui are slow but usable, but control via the Duet Controller or IR remote is plenty snappy.

Also, you can build/buy fanless low-noise low-energy-draw systems with 1GB RAM and 1.2GHz or better processors.

Well plenty of people on the QNAP forum think it runs quite slow. And a TS-209Pro isn't that low quality, although it only has 128MB ram.
For me the webinterface is now already quite slow, and that's on a 2.4GHz system with 1GB ram and SATA disks. I would expect software running on the same pc to feel snappy. Many websites on the 'net load faster than SC coming from the same PC.

Apart from that, I see this discussion is going nowhere, but at least I've aired my frustrations about the software of this otherwise splendid hardware.

And I have no ambition to start coding it myself, I am already scrambling to find the time to work on another open source project (see sig)

pippin
2008-08-06, 08:09
I would expect software running on the same pc to feel snappy. Many websites on the 'net load faster than SC coming from the same PC.


Actually, as of my experience, on Windows SC web UI is faster if NOT run on the same PC as the browser but on another one on the network.

atrocity
2008-08-06, 08:56
This whole discussion is silly. A typical PC these days has 2GB. Bloat doesn't matter.

"Doesn't matter" is awfully broad. It might not matter to a lot of people who aren't trying to do a lot of things at the same time, but it certainly matters to some of us.

I'm not criticizing SC at all, just going on a more generalized rant. I've just seen too much wildly, blatantly *stupid* code in my day to be able to dismiss bloat that calmly.

I recently moved SC, Firefly (mt-daapd) and Apache off my Windows machine onto a lower-powered Linux one. The Windows machine now runs a hell of a lot more reliably. Is it because I was asking too much of it or is it because stuff that *should* have played nicely together didn't due to unreasonable demands? I really don't know, but I think it's worth thinking considering.

pfarrell
2008-08-06, 09:13
atrocity wrote:
> pfarrell;326488 Wrote:
>> This whole discussion is silly. A typical PC these days has 2GB. Bloat
>> doesn't matter.
>
> "Doesn't matter" is awfully broad. It might not matter to a lot of
> people who aren't trying to do a lot of things at the same time, but it
> certainly matters to some of us.

If you want to do lots of things at once, get an adequate platform.

In absolute sense, you are correct, my statement was a tad excessively
broad. But it came in the context of this idiotic thread.

Folk who use a SqueezeBox tend to have a lot of music, so they have to
have a lot of disk drives. $400 for a couple of disk drives will buy
space for a lot of songs.

Most spent $300 per SqueezeBox, plus amps, speakers, etc.

It is silly to not spend $400 to get the server, or to upgrade the
server to match it.

I just bought a quad processor Penyrn system from Gateway with 3GB DDR2
667 memory and a 500 GB disk for $550. Its quiet and way faster than
SC needs.

> hell of a lot more reliably. Is it because I was asking too much of it
> or is it because stuff that *should* have played nicely together didn't
> due to unreasonable demands? I really don't know, but I think it's
> worth thinking considering.

In these days of nearly free computers, I wouldn't waste 20 seconds
considering it. Just get a decent configuration.

As you say, SC runs great on Linux with wimpy systems. So get one. Free
your Windoze box to do Windows things.

I have three squeezeboxen, a transporter and a Duet. I don't think its
excessive to spend $300 on a server to support the music.

And, this thread is silly because the code exists and is open source. If
you want it in scala, python, D, scheme, etc, go write it. But its not
going to be moved from Perl to YourFavoriteLanguge. Perl does the job
and its simply not cost effective to even seriously discuss this as a
"problem" when $100 worth of hardware will solve it.


--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

peter
2008-08-06, 09:26
Pétur wrote:
> And I have no ambition to start coding it myself, I am already
> scrambling to find the time to work on another open source project (see
> sig)
>

That's appreciated too. I run it on the old but solid iRiver H140 in my car.
I keep thinking some car radio maker should load ithe Rockbox software
on their hardware and make a decent car mp3 player.

Regards,
Peter

radish
2008-08-06, 09:29
Perl does the job
and its simply not cost effective to even seriously discuss this as a
"problem" when $100 worth of hardware will solve it.



Agreed. I just upgraded my server with a new motherboard, 64-bit processor and 2GB of RAM - came to around $100. I then threw in a couple of $100 750GB disks and an old case and I have a 1.5TB server which will beat the pants off any NAS in terms of performance for ~$300. Runs SC7 great, virtually no noise, and takes less power than an average lightbulb.

pippin
2008-08-06, 10:44
Sorry, but the "buy adequate hardware" argument is BS. My Mac came out half a year ago and suffers, agreed, my Windows machine could use an update but my server is pretty much at the top of what you can get in noiseLESS. Which is what I need or I'll have to buy a new flat and that would be a bit over my computer hardware budget. It runs Linux and it still suffers.
Let's face it, hardware did NOT get faster in the last four years, my old Subnotebook I bought four years ago performs pretty much exactly like my new MacBook.

m1abrams
2008-08-06, 10:51
Sorry, but the "buy adequate hardware" argument is BS. My Mac came out half a year ago and suffers, agreed, my Windows machine could use an update but my server is pretty much at the top of what you can get in noiseLESS. Which is what I need or I'll have to buy a new flat and that would be a bit over my computer hardware budget. It runs Linux and it still suffers.
Let's face it, hardware did NOT get faster in the last four years, my old Subnotebook I bought four years ago performs pretty much exactly like my new MacBook.

Really you could buy 2GB PC8500 RAM 4 years ago for $40? Hardware has increased in performance and decreased in price a great deal in 4 years. A good bit of emphasis in just the past year has been towards power consumption reduction and making machines quieter. I know my newer machines handle decoding and encoding much faster than my older machines.

However if you have a decent machine bought within the last couple of years and it is having issues running SC, then I strongly recommend you isolate the problem because that is not the norm and something is not right.

pfarrell
2008-08-06, 11:21
pippin wrote:
> Let's face it, hardware did NOT get faster in the last four years, my
> old Subnotebook I bought four years ago performs pretty much exactly
> like my new MacBook.

Sorry, this is factually incorrect. Its a uninformed rant, and it
degrades the discussion.

As I wrote upthread:
> I just bought a quad processor Penyrn system from Gateway with 3GB DDR2
> 667 memory and a 500 GB disk for $550. Its quiet and way faster than
> SC needs.

You simply could not buy that much speed for under $10,000 four years ago.

--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

pippin
2008-08-06, 11:52
Really you could buy 2GB PC8500 RAM 4 years ago for $40?

OK, it DID get cheaper. Fact is: given the overall requirements I can NOT buy faster systems right now.


Sorry, this is factually incorrect. Its a uninformed rant, and it
degrades the discussion.


Sorry, it is not, come here and I'll show you. I can run benchmarks, if you like. The Mac is formally twice as fast, but it has such a bad thermal management that it shuts down the second core when I run my dev. environment + browser + SC which is what I need to write SC related code on that machine.
With one core it's actually slower than my old Dell. And there isn't a faster alternative available right now.
Don't tell me I'm uninformed when you have no idea what you are talking about yourself.

pfarrell
2008-08-06, 11:59
Mods,

Its time to lock this rantfest

m1abrams
2008-08-06, 12:13
Mods,

Its time to lock this rantfest

Agreed

...more text to satisfy forum software.

Pétur
2008-08-07, 01:41
well if the slimdevices fanboys are happy to close the thread, I guess we can all go home.

The final argument seems to be: no it is not bloatware, just throw more hardware against it. Sad times are ahead :(

Apart from that, we obviously have a different view on what 'silent' is. Getting a system with a cpu that has a termal envelope of +100W to run silent is *very* costly. Unless you mean by noisless that you can't hear it when it is in the server room and you are in another.

My system(s) stand in the living room, and my wife is very picky when it comes to noise. *very*. Try getting your super 4 core 4GB dreammachine to run fanless.... Your argument is just silly.

You also completely miss the point that when it takes +100MB RAM, it will probably also use quite a bit of CPU power to execute the lot.

I see your point and I can tell you why they are not ok for me, now look at it from my point of view. Given the functionality SS gives, +100MB is just way over it.

(And yes, I think FF3 also consumes too much memory, but that is probably due to caching pages in memory.)

peter
2008-08-07, 02:01
Pétur wrote:
> well if the slimdevices fanboys are happy to close the thread, I guess
> we can all go home.
>
> The final argument seems to be: no it is not bloatware, just throw more
> hardware against it. Sad times are ahead :(
>
> Apart from that, we obviously have a different view on what 'silent'
> is. Getting a system with a cpu that has a termal envelope of +100W to
> run silent is *very* costly. Unless you mean by noisless that you can't
> hear it when it is in the server room and you are in another.
>

Obviously. Who in their right mind would put a server in their living
room? ;)

> My system(s) stand in the living room, and my wife is very picky when
> it comes to noise. *very*. Try getting your super 4 core 4GB
> dreammachine to run fanless.... Your argument is just silly.
>

Don't put your server in the living room.
Disks aren't noiseless either.

> You also completely miss the point that when it takes +100MB RAM, it
> will probably also use quite a bit of CPU power to execute the lot.
>
> I see your point and I can tell you why they are not ok for me, now
> look at it from my point of view. Given the functionality SS gives,
> +100MB is just way over it.
>


Rewriting the server in a different language is a huge job and it's
probably not going to happen. So you better accept it as part of the
package or go the Sonos route instead. There used to be an alternative
server written in Java, I believe. Haven't heard much of it lately...

Regards,
Peter

Khuli
2008-08-07, 02:35
Not commenting on the performanace of SC as opposed to any other software, but as someone who fondly remembers the days of Spectrums, TRS80s and the BBC Micro (still in my attic!), I can't help but recall some of the quite amazing games (eg Elite), spreadsheets, databases etc that packed a huge amount into 16 or 32k of ram.

I tend to agree with previous posters that using 100mb (over 3,000 times more than 32k) of memory does seem excessive. It's not exclusively an SC issue, but programming efficiency generally seems to have been abandoned as availability of RAM has increased.

m1abrams
2008-08-07, 03:28
I tend to agree with previous posters that using 100mb (over 3,000 times more than 32k) of memory does seem excessive. It's not exclusively an SC issue, but programming efficiency generally seems to have been abandoned as availability of RAM has increased.

First SC does a good bit more than those games of 30+ years ago.
Second coding for efficiency can be very expensive and many times not worth the return. It also can lead to sacrificing maintainability which in the case of an open source project can lead to the end of it. I pride myself on making my code lean and mean most coders do, however when working with deadlines I know my client wants stability over lean. Reason, they have no issues throwing hardware at it, it is much cheaper than my billing rate.

I have not looked into SC code, however I am willing to bet a good bit of the memory is consumed by indexes. And no using more memory does NOT equate to using more CPU power.

To the comment about being worried about the times ahead because of coders saying exactly that "throw hardware at it". Well you need to understand hardware is cheap, labor is expensive, and money runs the business.

As we have said over and over, if you think you can do better it is completely open code, Have at it.

peter
2008-08-07, 03:39
m1abrams wrote:
> First SC does a good bit more than those games of 30+ years ago.
> Second coding for efficiency can be very expensive and many times not
> worth the return. It also can lead to sacrificing maintainability
> which in the case of an open source project can lead to the end of it.
> I pride myself on making my code lean and mean most coders do, however
> when working with deadlines I know my client wants stability over lean.
> Reason, they have no issues throwing hardware at it, it is much cheaper
> than my billing rate.
>
> I have not looked into SC code, however I am willing to bet a good bit
> of the memory is consumed by indexes. And no using more memory does
> NOT equate to using more CPU power.
>

Often it's the other way around. You spend more memory to save time.

> To the comment about being worried about the times ahead because of
> coders saying exactly that "throw hardware at it". Well you need to
> understand hardware is cheap, labor is expensive, and money runs the
> business.
>
> As we have said over and over, if you think you can do better it is
> completely open code, Have at it.

"We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time:
premature optimization is the root of all evil." (Knuth, Donald.
/Structured Programming with go to Statements/, ACM Journal *Computing
Surveys*, Vol 6, No. 4, Dec. 1974. p.268.)

Write the code and wait 'til the hardware catches up ;)

Regards,
Peter

funkstar
2008-08-07, 03:42
The Mac is formally twice as fast, but it has such a bad thermal management that it shuts down the second core when I run my dev. environment + browser + SC which is what I need to write SC related code on that machine.
That is hardly the fault of SC though. That is a problem with the way Apple designed that Mac. If the system isn't capable of cooling the processor while running at full pelt, then it is broken. Not your fault, not Slimdevices fault, it's Apples fault.

This will be the same with any multi threaded veideo encoding app, and they are often less than a couple of MB of code. So *your* particular problem has nothing to do with the size of SC or the language it is written in.

egd
2008-08-07, 04:01
Actually, as of my experience, on Windows SC web UI is faster if NOT run on the same PC as the browser but on another one on the network.heh, why am I not surprised.

pippin
2008-08-07, 04:49
That is hardly the fault of SC though. That is a problem with the way Apple designed that Mac. If the system isn't capable of cooling the processor while running at full pelt, then it is broken. Not your fault, not Slimdevices fault, it's Apples fault.

This will be the same with any multi threaded veideo encoding app,

Don't have to go to ENcoding. Even DEcoding doesn't work well.
You are right in that it's not SC's FAULT, I never said it was.
BUT, if SC used less resources it would solve the issue.
AND it's a case where throwing HW at it does NOT solve the issue. It's the only subnotebook Apple has and moving away from that would probably deprive me of 50% of my development time.


and they are often less than a couple of MB of code. So *your* particular problem has nothing to do with the size of SC or the language it is written in.

I agree on the memory part, but the language DOES have an impact since perl isn't really fast, too.

m1abrams
2008-08-07, 05:01
Oh and to tally up what SC does for ~100MB
1. Web Server
2. Web Content that is actually pretty advanced with the ability to skin
3. Database Server that has no issues with very large music collections well over 10K tracks
4. Media Server for multiple clients
5. Plugin support, although plugins do add to the footprint I know I have both Biography and Album Review and my total res. memory usage for mysql and SC is under 100MB.
6. RSS reader, again mine is on and active and still under 100MB.

Probably a few more items I am missing. Also if you run other applications that require mysql they will share the memory requirements of mysql.

pippin
2008-08-07, 05:12
Also if you run other applications that require mysql they will share the memory requirements of mysql.

Only if you succeed in manually setting that up, which I haven't so far. Out of the box you end up with two mysql instances.

pfarrell
2008-08-07, 07:55
Pétur wrote:
> Apart from that, we obviously have a different view on what 'silent'
> is. Getting a system with a cpu that has a termal envelope of +100W to
> run silent is *very* costly. Unless you mean by noisless that you can't
> hear it when it is in the server room and you are in another.

No, at least you and I agree on silent. That is why my music server is
in the basement next to the furnace and A/C

The idea that the music server needs to be anywhere near the SqueezeBox,
Transporter or Duet is missing the point.


> My system(s) stand in the living room, and my wife is very picky when
> it comes to noise. *very*. Try getting your super 4 core 4GB
> dreammachine to run fanless.... Your argument is just silly.

No one proposed such a thing. But my quad core machine is relatively
quiet and it was not designed to be low noise or low power. There are
tons of machines that are lower noise and lower power than my quad.

I think most of the complaints are from folks trying to use cheap NAS
boxes, which is in itself a mistake IMHO. VIA has several processors
that are fanless, as is the new Intel ATOM line.


--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

CatBus
2008-08-07, 08:18
Try getting your super 4 core 4GB dreammachine to run fanless

Okay.

http://www.hushtechnologies.net/

Admittedly I have a slightly older Core2Duo B3 myself but if their quad-core design (B4 model) is remotely similar--and all the specs indicate it is--then it doesn't even have a fan in the power supply. And I still have mine running in a closet in a room across the house, because of the very slight whisper-hum of the 2.5" HDD.

Sure there's a price premium. But to be perfectly honest you don't even need a Core2Duo to run a media server, let alone a quad-core, so we're already talking about spending more than you technically need to.

m1abrams
2008-08-07, 08:30
Okay.

http://www.hushtechnologies.net/

Admittedly I have a slightly older Core2Duo B3 myself but if their quad-core design (B4 model) is remotely similar--and all the specs indicate it is--then it doesn't even have a fan in the power supply. And I still have mine running in a closet in a room across the house, because of the very slight whisper-hum of the 2.5" HDD.

Sure there's a price premium. But to be perfectly honest you don't even need a Core2Duo to run a media server, let alone a quad-core, so we're already talking about spending more than you technically need to.

Heck I have a Phenom 9500 running virtually silent if you disable the harddrives. Hard drives are much harder to isolate noise from. The machine is not fanless, however I am using 2 of these fans http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0266398

And a sychte mini-ninja cooler using 1 of the above fans in place of the stock. I even have the fans running at full tilt and you can not hear them.

Problem with running any machine completely fanless is other parts of the system expect to have some airflow. Things like the voltage regulators expect to get a little bit of air movement off of the cpu cooler. A motherboard with passive cooling on the northbridge expects some air movement, in fact some makers even say in the manual if you water cool the machine you need to put a fan on certain parts.

The quad machine I have above is in my living room, it is my HTPC. Only sounds I can hear are the fan whirl of the harddrive which can only be heard if you listen for it when everything else is silent.

pippin
2008-08-07, 08:43
Problem with running any machine completely fanless is other parts of the system expect to have some airflow.
Yep. That's exactly the issue. Lot's of holes and a bit of convection help here.
I've got A Via C7 1.5GHz in a small case that does the trick, haven't seen any intel machines that would do the trick. Another alternative is Heat Pipes but then you have to make sure all elements is the system are connected to these.
Forget about high power machines for this.

Funny enough I have NO problem at all with the HD. It's in a fully closed external SATA case and you do NOT hear it spin. You hear it when it reads or writes data.

In idle mode the most noisy part of the system is actually the power supply (no fan, the transistors and inductors).

"put it in a different room from your SB" is not an option, I've got an SBx in every room except for the bathroom and that one is too wet for a server.

CatBus
2008-08-07, 08:54
haven't seen any intel machines that would do the trick

Follow the link and then you have.


Forget about high power machines for this.

If you mean high power consumption, then yes. But high performance is very doable--again, following the link.


"put it in a different room from your SB" is not an option, I've got an SBx in every room except for the bathroom and that one is too wet for a server.

Most homes built since the 1950's have closets.

pippin
2008-08-07, 09:34
Most homes built since the 1950's have closets.

Mine was built 1908

bobkoure
2008-08-07, 09:43
I run a C7 based server as well. It could be very quiet, but I didn't bother as it's in the basement - and I like the idea of server HDs getting airflow.
It is low power as it's on 24/7 (also the family web, ftp, and email server).

That said, I'd be delighted if SC became larger - if that size increase translated to a faster web interface.
For instance, a size-for-speed trade-off could come from storing all "expected" web interface queries. e.g. pre-build the response to say home/artists/a.
Memory is so cheap these days that, if I can trade it for speed, that's a good deal.

Ben Sandee
2008-08-07, 09:59
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 11:43 AM, bobkoure <
bobkoure.3ds7kz1218127501 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:

>
> I run a C7 based server as well. It -could- be very quiet, but I didn't
> bother as it's in the basement - and I like the idea of server HDs
> getting airflow.
> It -is- low power as it's on 24/7 (also the family web, ftp, and email
> server).
>
> That said, I'd be -delighted- if SC became larger - if that size
> increase translated to a faster web interface.
> For instance, a size-for-speed trade-off could come from storing all
> "expected" web interface queries. e.g. pre-build the response to say
> -home/artists/a-.
> Memory is so cheap these days that, if I can trade it for speed, that's
> a good deal.


You're going to make pippin and Petur's heads explode.

Ben

CardinalFang
2008-08-07, 10:14
Mine was built 1908

I'm in a newer house now, but my last was Victorian and had some very weird legal covenants on it, I couldn't turn it into a pub for example. Spoilsports.

Mind you, my school was built in 1554. That's nearly 4pm. (Sadly a crazy guy burnt it down, but I do remember really worn stone steps.)

My favourite old house was my late Dad's though, 16th century with 3ft thick stone walls. Bolt your speakers to that and they aren't moving anytime soon.

pippin
2008-08-07, 14:06
You're going to make pippin and Petur's heads explode.


Actually, no. MY problem was more with speed, too than with memory consumption.

Pétur
2008-08-08, 01:08
No, at least you and I agree on silent. That is why my music server is
in the basement next to the furnace and A/C

The idea that the music server needs to be anywhere near the SqueezeBox,
Transporter or Duet is missing the point.


Oh man I'd love to put some gear in an other location, but until we move to another place, the living room is the only place to use. Yes we live in a small apartment, but I'd still like to use my SB2 ;)

and *if* the extra mem is purely for caching I wouldn't mind that much, but what we have now is just to get it running I feel (correct me if I'm wrong)

We had a chat about this over at rockbox (where we do use perl, but only for what it was intended for: scripting some automated stuff), and the general idea was to change the SB firmware to be uPnP compliant and have a free choice of media server. Don't know if anybody ever thought in doing this or maybe even started it once?

Are the hardware internals of the SB also 'open'?

erland
2008-08-08, 01:29
the general idea was to change the SB firmware to be uPnP compliant and have a free choice of media server. Don't know if anybody ever thought in doing this or maybe even started it once?

The current SB firmware is not open source as far as I know.


Are the hardware internals of the SB also 'open'?
It depends, I don't think there are any problem to get information regarding which chips that are used and I think I've even seen a schematic of the circuit board, but I'm not completely sure.

If you look in the DIY section of this forum, you will probably find some useful stuff.

pippin
2008-08-08, 01:59
We had a chat about this over at rockbox (where we do use perl, but only for what it was intended for: scripting some automated stuff), and the general idea was to change the SB firmware to be uPnP compliant and have a free choice of media server. Don't know if anybody ever thought in doing this or maybe even started it once?


Bad idea. What sense does this make? The real advantage of the SBx (apart from the sound quality) is it's ability to be remotely controlled through SC. There's no standard for that in UPnP, would have to go with a proprietary control point and the you can just as well implement the Squeezebox protocol.

Pétur
2008-08-08, 04:51
Bad idea. What sense does this make? The real advantage of the SBx (apart from the sound quality) is it's ability to be remotely controlled through SC. There's no standard for that in UPnP, would have to go with a proprietary control point and the you can just as well implement the Squeezebox protocol.

hmmm... good point

funkstar
2008-08-08, 05:15
The current SB firmware is not open source as far as I know.
Correct the firmware of the players has never been open source.

There are a couple of good reasons for this. 1) It allows SD to include support for paid services like Rhapsody 2) the Ubicom development suite runs into the many thousand dollar bracket. Way, way, way back, I believe Sean Adams had discussions with Ubicom to try and talk them into reducing this. Didn't happen.

bobkoure
2008-08-08, 07:44
I'm in a newer house now, but my last was Victorian
We built ours... about 11 years ago (so a newborn compared to some folks here). At the time, I thought I was being really smart by installing a "home run" system of CAT5e. Now I wish I'd installed two runs of CAT5e or better yet had future-proofed myself with conduit.
BTW, cheap vinyl garden hose makes decent residential conduit, and no elbows means stuff is easier to pull. Did I mention the stuff's cheap?

m1abrams
2008-08-08, 07:54
We built ours... about 11 years ago (so a newborn compared to some folks here). At the time, I thought I was being really smart by installing a "home run" system of CAT5e. Now I wish I'd installed two runs of CAT5e or better yet had future-proofed myself with conduit.
BTW, cheap vinyl garden hose makes decent residential conduit, and no elbows means stuff is easier to pull. Did I mention the stuff's cheap?

Not sure vinyl garden hose would be up to code in many areas. They tend to be picky about stuff that is inside walls and how it burns. So I would check local building codes before using that.

pfarrell
2008-08-08, 08:47
Pétur wrote:
> Are the hardware internals of the SB also 'open'?

Some. I haven't looked in detail, but I remember: The DSP chip is
programmed and the vendor of the DSP chip does not release their support
libraries. While Sean has said he was willing to open the code Slim
wrote, it needs a $10,000 development station, and assorted other stuff,
and no one in the open source world is likely to be willing to spend
that kind of money to change the EQ curve.

Sean has posted internal photos of the boards going back to early times,
and has openly discussed proposed hacks/improvements.

--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

andyg
2008-08-08, 08:54
Some of our firmware code is going to be open source in SqueezePlay, which is a pretty close port for things like the mp3 decoder, etc.

BTW, we will be adding better UPnP support in the near future, so you can be connected to SqueezeNetwork and still access local music on UPnP servers. This way the firmware only needs minimal extra code (in fact the UPnP support is already in there, just not used by anything yet ;)

Pale Blue Ego
2008-08-08, 11:13
A) - If you just want the core functionality, then run an earlier version of Slimserver. 5.4.1 is a good, stable one. But I'm betting you'll miss a lot of the features and functions that have been added in the past few years.

B) - RAM is cheap.

bobkoure
2008-08-08, 14:07
Not sure vinyl garden hose would be up to code in many areas. They tend to be picky about stuff that is inside walls and how it burns. So I would check local building codes before using that.
Sure you're not thinking of plenums? Things are lots stricter when it's guaranteed that the combustion byproducts are going directly into breathing space - and, if you've looked into any plenums, you'll note that there isn't just one or two wires up there...

erland
2008-08-08, 14:34
B) - RAM is cheap.
True, unless you are using a low power NAS device which can't be upgraded with more memory. Of course, those kind of devices aren't really the optimal hardware to run SqueezeCenter on anyway.

pfarrell
2008-08-08, 14:45
erland wrote:
> True, unless you are using a low power NAS device which can't be
> upgraded with more memory. Of course, those kind of devices aren't
> really the optimal hardware to run SqueezeCenter on anyway.

Yes, this is a more fundamental answer. Stop pretending that a low
powered NAS can run SC. It can hold the data, but most of the whining in
thread is about how it can't run properly on a machine that folks should
not be using.

--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

Pétur
2008-08-10, 05:26
erland wrote:[color=blue]
Stop pretending that a low
powered NAS can run SC. It can hold the data, but most of the whining in
thread is about how it can't run properly on a machine that folks should
not be using.http://www.pfarrell.com/

Correct indeed. The NAS is powerful enough to run samba/webserver/ftp/telnet/uPnP/ipcam/... - even at the same time - but not SC

This is clearly a problem of the NAS

</sarcasm>

chinablues
2008-08-10, 10:35
Interesting thread. A couple of thoughts.

CardinalFang, I thought you had died or maybe gone into hibernation. Maybe someone opened your coffin or what? Welcome back.

Pat, your comments about cost of hardware, memory are well taken. I lived in Beijing for two years and watched as migrant workers chipped off the cement from the bricks. There, used bricks were more valuable than labour. Makes you stop & think about global economics. (you see the opening ceremony of the Olympics? Who in the west could afford that?). But in this world of audiophiles and techie folks that maybe layout 200$ for copper (ok, interconnects), you are right, its relatively cheap to upgrade the equipment to run the application.

Not to say that 'bloatware' is not a concern, but I'm prepared to give some latitude to the application I use on a daily basis. (squeezeserver running at 185k....but I've got 8GB, so should I really be that worried??)

Dan

thing-fish
2008-08-11, 11:01
m1abrams wrote:[color=blue]
This whole discussion is silly. A typical PC these days has 2GB. Bloat
doesn't matter.

I don't run Squeezecenter on a typical PC from these days. For a long time I used a Pentium 4 from 1999 which maxed out at at 450 MB of RAM and ran FreeBSD, now I'm running a Pentium 3 with a little over a gig of RAM with Ubuntu. As we upgrade our machines in the house, the oldest one becomes the media server. I understand what you're saying about people running SC on less-than-ideal hardware, but you must understand that I specifically chose Slimserver/Squeezecenter because of its low system requirements. I entered the Slim family for the software, though I did buy a Squeezebox a few years later and would dearly like to get some more of them. For that matter, I'd rather give Logitech $300 for another Squeezebox and keep using my hand-me-down computers rather than spend $300 on a new PC for my one Squeezebox. It might seem silly to some, but if Logitech did go in the direction of requiring a late-model, dedicated computer to be the server, they'd price themselves out of my market.

All those things stated, while software designers should *always* strive to have efficient, performant applications, SC runs fantastically on my years-old computer, even as it is used for other stuff (like running pyTivo to provide additional functionality for my Tivo, something I DEARLY wish that Slim would build into SC).